this post was submitted on 19 May 2025
165 points (99.4% liked)

politics

23545 readers
2481 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

On May 12, California Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, demanded that cities throughout the state adopt anti-camping ordinances that would effectively ban public homelessness by requiring unhoused individuals to relocate every 72 hours.

While presented as a humanitarian effort to reduce homelessness, the new policy victimizes California’s growing unhoused population—approximately 187,000 people—by tying funding in Proposition 1 to local laws banning sleeping or camping on public land.

In his announcement, Newsom pushed local governments to adopt the draconian ordinances “without delay.”

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Spending millions a day to shuffle around people instead of actually saving money by putting them in unoccupied homes.

Can't wait until the DNC picks him for me tells me this was actually a good thing, like platforming Charlie Kirk and Steve Banon, and saying trans people are actually disgusting with them.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 12 points 2 hours ago

Fascist.

I live in downtown Oakland. It’s grim. The city has been fencing off areas where people previously had tents. It’s very sad.

[–] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 15 points 3 hours ago

"Running to the right will work for me because I'm a white dude!"

[–] aseriesoftubes@lemmy.world 70 points 7 hours ago (5 children)

WTF happened to this guy? Did he have a Fetterman stroke?

[–] simplejack@lemmy.world 9 points 3 hours ago

IMHO, there is a fair amount of misinformation floating this issue.

Newsom hasn’t been pushing to blindly kick people off the street with no where to go. The draft ordinance is about filling unfilled shelter beds.

So if you had 200 beds and 1000 unhoused people, Newsom wants to be able to clear enough encampments to get 200 people into shelters. Cities wouldn’t clear all the encampments, only enough to get close to filling the available beds.

And that said, that policy doesn’t really account for the fact that shelters can be pretty dangerous and worse than the streets. So although this policy sounds compassionate, it’s actually quite flawed.

[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 34 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

He's gearing up for a presidential run, and I'm mostly sure that the DNC wants him for 2028; he's running hard to the right (not that he was ever really far left to start with, FOX made him sound way cooler than he ever was) so that they can try the "run a moderate Republican and see if we can win by peeling off a whole 6 republicans nationally and then shaming the tuned out base when we lose" strategy against Trump for a third time. There for a bit, I would have been pretty okay with voting for Gavin, but it's clear enough to me now as a CA resident that he's the clown prince of shitlibs and he's just desperately scrambling to try and pick up support from DOZENS of moderate republicans all over the country.

About the only thing he's done lately that I agree with is dedicating $1B/yr of California's carbon cap and trade program to CAHSR for the next fifty (I think it was fifty) years, which solves a HUGE problem that's been a big source of delays for CAHSR, which is the lack of predictable funding.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 63 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Nope, he's just a neoliberal chasing after the center.

[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 18 points 6 hours ago

The center between Hitler and Mussolini

[–] RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works 10 points 6 hours ago

He’s trying to become POTUS and it is unlikely the DNC will select someone looking to make things better

He is now, and always was, a neoliberal. He just aligned himself to blue politics for a while.

[–] simplejack@lemmy.world 26 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Does anyone have a source for the 72 hour thing?

I don’t see it in the draft ordinance. https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Encampment-Ordinance-formatted.pdf

The draft ordinance basically says that, if there are available beds, a city can clear a campsite if they give people 48 hours notice and direct people to the available shelter beds.

Although, this ordinance does not address the fact that many shelters cause more harm than good. People are on the street because it’s safer for their wellbeing and belongings. No one seems to be talking about this.

[–] verdantbanana@lemmy.world 4 points 4 hours ago

Enabling shitty behavior from both Democrats and Republicans is what got the United States in this mess to begin with

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 47 points 7 hours ago (3 children)

Sounding a bit more like Trump bit by bit. Wtf.

It’s not surprising, but it is disappointing. He’s showing his true allegiance, and it’s not to a political party. It’s to a socioeconomic class, and that socioeconomic class is “rich people”.

[–] lupusblackfur@lemmy.world 16 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

bit by bit

That sounds like "a little" and "slowly"...

Pretty sure Newsom's swing to the right is pretty fair complete by now. He's basically full MAGAt, just managing to keep it somewhat low-key so far.

🤡 🖕

I'm still fuzzy on his reason though... Could be looking for a Presidential run in the near future...??? 🤔

[–] transientpunk@sh.itjust.works 10 points 7 hours ago

Of course he is. He hasn't been trying to hide it

[–] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 11 points 7 hours ago

Newsom is just another rich worm who got into politics. Frankly speaking if our recalls weren't fucking braindead he'd probably have been kicked to the curb by now.

[–] jhymesba@lemmy.world 26 points 7 hours ago (16 children)

Yeah. I'm torn.

On one hand, I've seen what happens when homeless people, especially the worst of them, take over a public space without supervision. It is not hyperbole to say they destroy the area. The massive homeless camps in downtown Denver featured needles, excrement, unwashed clothing, and, in two instances I personally witnessed, a fire that tore through the area, destroying the homeless camp and risking damage to everything around. I get that we need to do better on housing all around and support the various proposals (such as homeless communities, repurposing abandoned buildings, etc), but there has to be an element of enforcement, including disallowing camping in areas not specifically purposed for camping, ensuring that people move on, and forced relocations, if for no other purpose than to address buildups of trash and vermin (to be clear: rats, not the people, I'm not calling homeless vermin 🙄 ). And IMO, a key component of this is funding a public healthcare program that addresses mental illness, such as Proposition 1 in California. This is good because addressing mental illness can lead to reduced drug abuse, which is a major cause of homelessness.

But on the other, what Newsom is doing is using tricks right out of the Trump playbook by demanding that cities and counties adopt policies they do not wish to implement to share in the funding that would make homelessness go down. I also notice that there are no requirements for carrots, only sticks. I.E. no demand that supervised camping sites be set up, or empty buildings bought up and repurposed as housing. Just the requirement that you're unwelcome in public places if you're unhoused, and that the law will be brought against you if you dare persist in the same place for 4 days in a row, no matter how much you take care of that space. Seems like he's working to appeal to the Right? "See, I can be as heartless and cruel as any Republican!" Makes me less inclined to vote for him.

[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 30 points 7 hours ago (11 children)

Homeless people are human beings. If we housed them, and had a proper social safety net, we wouldn't even be talking about it's. Homeless or not, they need a place to live.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] chase_what_matters@lemmy.world 9 points 6 hours ago

I watched what I assume was a meth lab burn the underpass of a major bridge near my apartment in 2023. Then just a couple weeks ago, only a few days away from the two-year anniversary, it happened again.

We need to support people. Otherwise, we will vilify them. The sad fact is, this is a result of decades of destruction, and there doesn’t seem to be any willpower to do the hard thing anymore.

It’s enough to make you want to walk into the ocean.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 15 points 7 hours ago

He's also giving more funding to services that help the homeless so they can get back on their feet and get a home, right?

... Right?

[–] Bieren@lemmy.world 3 points 5 hours ago (1 children)
[–] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

Ignorant morons.

You know... cops.

[–] ohulancutash@feddit.uk 3 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

Vile slug. They’re people. People. His constituents. A man who lives in a taxpayer-funded mansion should think with humility.

load more comments
view more: next ›